Catholics vs Mormons vs Protestants on the "Gates of Hell"

[Snow]

The question I want to ask the vocal Mormon’s on this board is why they think that the Catholic Church is lying about what it teaches. What would be the motivation for men who have devoted their entire lives to God to lie about what God told them, thus exposing their souls?

Oh please. The drama.

I don’t think the Catholic Church is lying. I think that those in the Catholic Church really believe what they believe.

Don’t be so melodramatic.

 

[jean8]

The Catholic Church in its infancy wrote the Scripture, assembled it into the Inspired Canon, and gave it to the world. How can anyone argue that their individual interpretation opposing the Catholic Church has a chance of being right?

It isn’t even plausable. Convincing but not true:thumbsup:

simon,
The church wrote scripture? They may have copied scripture but they didn’t write it." All scripture is God-breathed… "See, 2Tim.2:16

jean8

 

[jean8]

We’ve discussed NHM before with bdawg. dzheremi, who is a linguist, kindly pointed out the issues with NHM being equal to Nahom. You can read it in this thread.

The fascination with the Mormon church is they will be having sex in heaven, Someone will have to sire all those spirit babies. lol.
Won’t the ladies love that.

jean8

 

[jean8]

Oh please. The drama.

I don’t think the Catholic Church is lying. I think that those in the Catholic Church really believe what they believe.

Don’t be so melodramatic.

And what is it that the Catholic Church teaches? do you know?
At least they know who God is. do you?

jean8

 

[Snow]

And what is it that the Catholic Church teaches?

. The Catholic Church teaches a lot of things. What, specifically are interested in learning about?

do you know?

Yes, thank you for inquiring.

At least they know who God is. do you?

jean8

Yes, why do you ask?

 

[Snow]

The fascination with the Mormon church is they will be having sex in heaven, Someone will have to sire all those spirit babies. lol.
Won’t the ladies love that.

jean8

Yes, funny, funny stuff. You made a clever joke. This must be a proud day for you.

 

[BDawg]

Now you tell me that Mormons believe Jesus is fully divine, although Mormons define differently than Catholics do. Is this another caveat?

Not really. It’s just a point about translation from one framework of ideas to another. Specifically, we don’t think of God as an eternally indivisible and unchangeable “substance.” Therefore, when we say Jesus is “fully Divine,” we are not saying the same thing as when you say that.

I’m afraid you’re mistaken about me participating in long discussions about Mormon views of God. While I have entered into several discussions with Mormons, I never knew anything about Mormons until I entered those discussions. I entered in discussions by researching the Mormon Church founder and have gone from there.

I’m sorry if I was mistaken. You might try reading this article if you want to understand the differences between LDS and Catholic thought about God.

There have been a few occasions where I asked questions that were not answered or I wasn’t able to comprehend the answers given. I did searches online and found answers and tried to re-enter the discussions to find Mormons angered at things I discovered. They were quick to condemn me and say I received the information through anti-Mormon sources.

Mormons do that, sometimes, as do Catholics and others. I sometimes get accused of being anti-Catholic around here even when I get my information from Catholic historical works, and simply try to give a rationale for a Mormon point of view.

One really can be irresponsible about that sort of thing, though, by avoiding reading certain points of view. That is, if you are getting information from anti-Catholic sites, but then not bothering to click on the Catholic sites before you start “asking questions” on an internet forum, others get the impression that you don’t really want to know what they think about these issues. You just want to find something to attack them with.

Now, I am being told I don’t listen. I feel that’s been a two way street, with the big difference being most Mormons on these forums know, or claim to know, more about Catholicism than I do about Mormonism.

When I say you don’t “listen,” I mean that your responses don’t give any indication that you have tried to consider other points of view. (And by that, I do not mean anything about considering changing points of view.) The bit about Jesus reneging on his promises is just one example. You gave no indication that you were trying to respond to my point of view. That is, you were not trying to communicate with ME–I don’t know who you were talking to.

I’m not interested in changing. As I’ve said, I was trying to understand what Mormons believe. If I’m not allowed to ask, that becomes suspicious to me. How else is one to know what Mormons believe, without asking?

Go back and check my posting history on this forum, Prodigal. I have always tried to respond very frankly even to questions that aren’t the most “comfortable” for Mormons to answer. Maybe the problem isn’t all with the Mormons here.

 

[paul_c]

Snow,
This is not about Drama, this is about logic.
If you don’t believe the Catholics are lying, why then don’t you believe them.

 

[BDawg]

Snow,
This is not about Drama, this is about logic.
If you don’t believe the Catholics are lying, why then don’t you believe them.

Some people used to think the world is flat. I don’t believe they were lying. Rather, I believe they were mistaken.

Do you believe that all the Mormons, JWs, Evangelicals, Orthodox, and so on are “lying” about their claims? Or do you just think they are (generally) honest, but mistaken?

 

[paul_c]

BDAWG,

I agree that people don’t generally lie about their religious claims.

However, that’s the rub. All of those religions you identified are “spin-offs” of the Catholic Church. They all left presumably because they thought they new a better path to salvation than that of the Church. Why would they think that? If they thought the church was honest in what it taught through its traditions, what would make anyone think they knew any better way?

Its much easier for the Catholics to say that they others are mistaken when they deviate from the path outlined by the Apostles and preserved by the church through scripture and tradition. To claim the Catholics are the ones that deviated is a much higher burden of proof because it implies either there was bad intent (which is really hard to beleive) or that the entire church got confused and changed the basic teachings of Christ. (That would also be hard to believe)

Which do you advocate?

 

[BDawg]

BDAWG,

I agree that people don’t generally lie about their religious claims.

However, that’s the rub. All of those religions you identified are “spin-offs” of the Catholic Church. They all left presumably because they thought they new a better path to salvation than that of the Church. Why would they think that? If they thought the church was honest in what it taught through its traditions, what would make anyone think they knew any better way?

Its much easier for the Catholics to say that they others are mistaken when they deviate from the path outlined by the Apostles and preserved by the church through scripture and tradition. To claim the Catholics are the ones that deviated is a much higher burden of proof because it implies either there was bad intent (which is really hard to beleive) or that the entire church got confused and changed the basic teachings of Christ. (That would also be hard to believe)

Which do you advocate?

Mormons believe there was an apostasy because God revealed this to our prophets. That’s why we think we know a better way. God said so.

As for your judgment that it’s so hard to believe there was “bad intent” on the part of Catholic leadership at any time, I disagree. During long stretches of the Medieval period, one bought, assassinated, or politicked one’s way into the Papacy and other high ecclesiastical offices. Catholic historians admit this. So why is it so hard to believe that Catholicism EVER went off course, when that’s how low the hierarchy sank?

 

[paul_c]

BDAWG,
while it is undeniable that some of our Popes led sinful personal lives, it is equally undeniable that they did not change the doctrines of the church handed down by the disciples. I am sure you can not identify a single example of such a case.

What makes it believable that your prophets have a new word of God that changes the old one. Where does it suggest that God changes his mind about the truth?

 

[BDawg]

BDAWG,
while it is undeniable that some of our Popes led sinful personal lives, it is equally undeniable that they did not change the doctrines of the church handed down by the disciples. I am sure you can not identify a single example of such a case.

What makes it believable that your prophets have a new word of God that changes the old one. Where does it suggest that God changes his mind about the truth?

The Catholic view of the Trinity is that there are three co-equal “Persons”.

On the other hand, before the fourth century, all the Christian theologians (except the Modalists, who Catholics call heretics) expressed some type of “subordinationism.” That is, they believed that the Son and Holy Spirit were ontologically “subordinate” to the Father.

If you want to check into the scholarly consensus that all pre-Nicene catholic theologians assumed some kind of subordinationism, you could start with this blog by a Catholic, David Waltz.

 

[Crucified]

But as I recall, I have not heard a word from Protestants on their view of this scripture. From a Protestant perspective, what does it mean? What do you think?

The promise of Christ to his Church as represented by Peter means that the true body of Christ can never be fully and finally overtaken, and that therefore every last sinner for whom Christ shed his blood at Calvary - shall be saved by his almighty grace, by the power of his Spirit, according to the purpose of God.

This is a promise for all of God’s elect.

 

[mfbukowski]

BDAWG,

I agree that people don’t generally lie about their religious claims.

However, that’s the rub. All of those religions you identified are “spin-offs” of the Catholic Church. They all left presumably because they thought they new a better path to salvation than that of the Church. Why would they think that? If they thought the church was honest in what it taught through its traditions, what would make anyone think they knew any better way?

Its much easier for the Catholics to say that they others are mistaken when they deviate from the path outlined by the Apostles and preserved by the church through scripture and tradition. To claim the Catholics are the ones that deviated is a much higher burden of proof because it implies either there was bad intent (which is really hard to beleive) or that the entire church got confused and changed the basic teachings of Christ. (That would also be hard to believe)

Which do you advocate?

2

 

[mfbukowski]

The promise of Christ to his Church as represented by Peter means that the true body of Christ can never be fully and finally overtaken, and that therefore every last sinner for whom Christ shed his blood at Calvary - shall be saved by his almighty grace, by the power of his Spirit, according to the purpose of God.

This is a promise for all of God’s elect.

Thanks for your post. Actually that is quite similar to what I believe about the apostasy. Fully and finally overtaken is very different from perfect transmission of apostolic succession.

I was curious about your signature, and have wanted to ask an ev–I don’t know if you are ev or not-- about their conception of righteousness-- I am sure any protestant wouold do

If Christ is your righteousness, does that mean that sin does not count for you, and you can sin all you want?

I may be mistaken, but I think tha twas Luther’s position.

 

[paul_c]

Bukowski,
So you are seriously advocating a situation where all the members of the Catholic Church got confused and changed the basic teachings of Christ? Lets review the situation.

First of all, the basic teachings of Christ can be traced back to the apostles through the written word over the last 2000 years. Can you demonstrate even one case where a basic teaching of Christ got distorted over time by the Catholic Church?

Also, recognize that the Church has always been vigilant about maintaining doctrinal consistency, calling forth councils to validate them on a regular basis whenever a heresy came forward.
This is why the church has been able to maintain consistency.

Isn’t it far more likely that your prophets were in error with their revelations that changed the teaching of Christ 1800-2000 years later.

 

[BDawg]

Bukowski,
So you are seriously advocating a situation where all the members of the Catholic Church got confused and changed the basic teachings of Christ? Lets review the situation.

First of all, the basic teachings of Christ can be traced back to the apostles through the written word over the last 2000 years. Can you demonstrate even one case where a basic teaching of Christ got distorted over time by the Catholic Church?

Also, recognize that the Church has always been vigilant about maintaining doctrinal consistency, calling forth councils to validate them on a regular basis whenever a heresy came forward.
This is why the church has been able to maintain consistency.

Isn’t it far more likely that your prophets were in error with their revelations that changed the teaching of Christ 1800-2000 years later.

Paul, I tried to answer this very same question a few points up.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12;
I have to disagree with you, the Word of God inspired through man to record visions, and revelations is “NOT” what I would call an opinion of man’s. I thought about it, a conclusion is arrived from a person’s disposition and belief in who Jesus Christ is. Do you believe Jesus is the Word of God made flesh? Do you believe Jesus is God incarnate? Do you believe Jesus when he says from scripture “IAM” the same name God gave Moses when God revealed himself to Moses?

God loves you, peace

 

[Snow]

Snow,
This is not about Drama, this is about logic.
If you don’t believe the Catholics are lying, why then don’t you believe them.

It should be about logic but let’s look at your logic. You maintain:

Catholic’s not lying = Catholic teachings true.

That implies that Catholics not lying can ONLY mean that Catholic beliefs / teachings are true. But - is that the only option?

No - of course not.

What are the alternatives? How about this:

Catholic’s not lying = Catholics mistaken but really believe what they teach.

Take the economist who believes that raising taxes won’t have a negative effect on the economy. He might really believe it and so if he is wrong, he isn’t a liar, merely mistaken. “Lying” implies that you are deliberately saying something you know to be untrue.

On the other hand, I believe that Catholics, say the Pope, likely believes in his Church (RCC) as much as the Church of Jesus Christ prophet believes in his Church.

Note: that’s not exactly correct as I believe that the LDS prophet possesses a more direct connection to God’s mind and will but the principle applies.